Factors that may have shaped my preference:
- Since I worked for a small non-profit not subject to FMLA, I would've had very little paid maternity leave available.
- Many of the women we know here in Memphis with young kids don't have jobs outside the home.
- My own mother, a teacher by trade, stayed at home with my siblings and me when we were young. In fact, she didn't go back to work regularly until I was in high school.
The mere fact that I was able to make such a decision, though, demonstrates the discrepancies in the country between the "professional" and "non-professional" employment classes, I think. (Those might not be the best terms, sorry...I really didn't get much sleep last night.) DF and I are fortunate in that he has a good, stable job that pays well enough for us to live off of his income alone. Without me working, we do have to adjust the budget, but we aren't going to wind up in poverty or anything. His employer is subject to FMLA, and he has accrued a whole heap of sick leave hours over the years. Through all the medical stuff I've dealt with + the birth of the twins, he's been able to take off several weeks this year with full pay. Also, let's face it, since he's a man these work absences aren't likely to jeopardize his career or stick him on a "daddy track."
What if we had different circumstances? What if DF worked in a less stable industry and got laid off while I was pregnant, so we only had my income? What if we both worked for small employers without any FMLA protection?
A few states have passed their own family leave laws. Isn't it about time for the US to join the rest of the developed world and offer paid family leave to new moms??
Here, let John Oliver convince you. Or, watch this TEDx talk on the subject. Full disclosure, I only watched the first 5 minutes or so of the TED talk before one of my current clients demanded attention, but it seemed good :)
No comments:
Post a Comment